In response to Del Castillo's extremely well-written article, we see Mr. Silvester's position quite clearly. Mr. Silvester complains about the repetition of the imperial discourse. I too complain about the consistent repetition of US Imperial policy. If Mr. Silvester is tired of the same discussion of imperialism as expressed in Latin America, the solution is to attack imperialism, not the author.

Silvester continues by claiming that del Castillo's concerns are comparable to "chicken little". The victims of Uribe's violence would certainly challenge this assumption. Uribe has not been a stickler for the rules in the past, his first step in dismantling the Colombian consitution is not something to be taken lightly, even is his policies have traditionally ignored said constitution.

Narconews has been reliably establishing the connections between the paramiltiaries and Uribe, the narcopresident, since his (first) presidential campaign. It is completely disingenuous to talk about the "positives" of a peace process that consists of the son of the founder of the paramilitaries shaking hands with the current paramilitaries, while abandoning negotiations with the guerrillas.

Silvester pre-qualifies his remarks by claiming his acknowledgement of the very real and very serious problems of the current situation in Colombia, even highlighting Plan Colombia as a "nightmare". After a short breath, he goes on to highlight the positives of the murderous Uribe administration.

What Silvester is missing is that the problems he highlights are exactly the goals of the Uribe administration. This is not made up for by a sense of security for the privileged classes. The positives of the Uribe administration are right out of the book of complicit Latin American dictatorships at the service of US Empire. A cursory consideration of recent history in Central America will show that the policy of "draining the sea to kill the fish", or wholesale murder of innocents in order to combat armed militias, is often accompanied by band-aid services to give apologists a feel-good example to discuss in congress while the horrors go on outside. I am at a loss to understand how we can believe that Uribe is combatting paramilitary violence by reenforcing a double standard of impunity for government-aligned paramilitaries and SUSPECTED guerrilla sympathizers are kidnapped for extradition.

The fact is that del Castillo has demonstrated her courage in exposing the current actions of President Uribe. That's called news. The fact that this issue is being ignored in the mainstream press is why we have authentic journalists. It is not del Castillo's responsibility to soften her critique with a discussion of the "positives" of the current anti-democratic administration.

Silvester then claims that tourism would pull Colombia out of the crisis if it weren't for the violence of the paramilitaries and guerrillas. This perspective would suggest that the armed groups in Colombia are in a squabble for money and drugs, certainly the perspective mainstream media and the Bush and Uribe administrations would have us believe.

In reality, a more accurate portrayal is that you have at least 2 "leftist" armed organizations, born of social struggle to address the structural violence of neoliberalism as expressed in Colombia engaged in armed conflict with the state, which perpetrates the neoliberal program, and the paramilitaries, which represent the most reactionary segments of Colombian society.

How well the guerrillas currently represent the armed aspect of social struggle is certainly open for debate, I for one am in no place to defend guerrilla actions. But by focusing on "security" issues, we ignore the basis and cause for the violence that has marred Colombian Society for 500 years. The true violence in Colombia is structural. It benefits a small elite, and the rest of Colombian society pays the price. One would have to read very far between the lines, perhaps to another article by another author to see a portrayal of the guerrillas as "Robin Hood" in del Castillo's article. Human rights will always suffer as long as state violence is considered a solution for armed conflict born of structural violence of the Colombian economic system.

I would also be careful about accusations of bigotry against narconews journalists when you are unable or unwilling to answer to your own bigotry, even when it is highlighted within these pages.

Silvester attempts a false balancing of the violence of Guerrillas and Paramilitaries, this analysis falls short when we consider that the paracos have the support of the state, and therefore the support of the United States. This is not to condone guerrilla violence, but rather to expose the purpose of equating violence of two sides diametrically opposed in the Colombian conflict. Through this equation, we can center attention on the symptoms of structural violence, and leave the structure itself unexamined.

Mr. Silvester, I would urge you, since you express disbelief at the extent and responsibility of the violence in Colombia, to look outside yourself. Colombia, like most of the planet, is deeply divided on class lines. I would suggest spending some time in any number of barrios in Colombia and really getting to know the people who live within, perhaps it would enlighten you as to why Uribe is far from "scratching the surface", he is the current incarnation of the problem. del Castillo has no responsibility to ease your conscience by discussing positives of the Colombian experience. If you are so concerned with highlighting these positives, perhaps you should involve yourself in those positives, and certainly you would be welcome when you have something to report.  

As a last word, I'm quite certain that were I concerned with such a competition, I could easily plaster these pages with anecdotal opinions of Colombians who would be more than happy to point out the truth of the Uribe administration. I'm more interested in protecting the people suffering from Uribe's policies, many are the same that suffered from the policies of Pastrana, largely because these policies, regardless of the current president, are orchestrated through the US embassy.

Changing the constitution for the extension of a murderous administration is the basis of fascism. Let's remember, Mussolini made the trains run on time.